Re: [boost] LL: Case study

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-30 06:58:12

From: "Asger Alstrup Nielsen" <alstrup_at_[hidden]>
> While I understand the code above, I just re-read the documentation for
> operator->* a few times. It is still greek to me. I didn't know there
> was a operator->* in C++ at all, so that is probably why. Maybe you
> could help poor souls like me, and explain this a bit more?
> In particular, I think it would be helpful to state the relation with
> bind, and symmetrically, in the bind section, reference the operator->*.

(px->*pm)(...) is (more or less) equivalent to bind(pm, px, ...). I find the
bind form slightly superior (albeit a bit verbose) since it doesn't require
the unary '&' and is less error prone.

I think that the unary & creates more problems than it solves; perhaps a
dedicated

address_of(_1)

primitive would be better.